"I was a christian", theist argument.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2015, 12:09 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(13-10-2015 12:03 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What do you think it proves if a person named Yeshua existed between 0-35 CE? Do you believe that validates any of the NT stories or any claims from Paul?

It's proves nothing, other the these accounts were based on a historical person.

But here, the question is merely about what constitutes as evidence. You seem to have some criteria for what does and doesn't.

The question is in regards to your criteria, if those early sources, NT Writings, the writing of non-contempory historians, etc... used by historians to draw conclusions about the existence of Jesus, constitute as evidence.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2015, 12:14 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(13-10-2015 12:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-10-2015 12:03 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What do you think it proves if a person named Yeshua existed between 0-35 CE? Do you believe that validates any of the NT stories or any claims from Paul?

It's proves nothing, other the these accounts were based on a historical person.

But here, the question is merely about what constitutes as evidence. You seem to have some criteria for what does and doesn't.

The question is in regards to your criteria, if those early sources, NT Writings, the writing on non-contempory historians, etc... used by historians to draw conclusions about the existence of Jesus, constitute as evidence.

"It's proves nothing, other the these accounts were based on a historical person. "

Making the NT as useful as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. You harp on a point that in the end, you admit adds no validity to biblical claims in any way.

"But here, the question is merely about what constitutes as evidence. You seem to have some criteria for what does and doesn't. "

That is what any definition is.

"The question is in regards to your criteria, if those early sources, NT Writings, the writing on non-contempory historians, etc... used by historians to draw conclusions about the existence of Jesus, constitute as evidence."

Jesus tap-dancing christ you are fucking dense. Here, I'll repost my answer to all of these.

"So the question get's asked again, are the early sources commonly used by historians to draw their conclusions regarding a historical Jesus, like the NT writings, early Christian writings, writings of non-contemporary historians, etc... do these sources constitute as evidence or not?"

Of what?
"a historical Jesus"
That a guy named Yeshua existed? I already answered that. Plausible that a guy named Yeshua (Joshua, which was a common name) existed. I bet multiple people named Yeshua existed during that time

"like the NT writings"
NT writings = claims about Jesus, not evidence of a Yeshua. In the same way that a movie about a character named Leather-face doesn't prove Leather-face existed nor would it prove that there was a historical figure upon which parts of the fiction were based (Ed Gein sewing human flesh into different patterns).

"early Christian writings"
Once again, the early Christian writings are all post-Jesus. So no, they aren't evidence of Jesus. Only a demonstration that some people believe bullshit.

"writings of non-contemporary historians"
No. Non-contemparies writing stories from hearsay, aren't evidence a person existed. For instance, ever heard of Ivan Renko? People will believe any old bullshit if they think it will make people pay attention to them. Even in the age of information where the truth is but a click away if you're intelligent enough to validate your sources.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2015, 12:25 PM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2015 12:31 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(13-10-2015 12:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Of what?
"a historical Jesus"
That a guy named Yeshua existed? I already answered that. Plausible that a guy named Yeshua (Joshua, which was a common name) existed. I bet multiple people named Yeshua existed during that time

That doesn't answer my question, but your other responses did:

Quote:"like the NT writings"
NT writings = claims about Jesus, not evidence of a Yeshua. In the same way that a movie about a character named Leather-face doesn't prove Leather-face existed nor would it prove that there was a historical figure upon which parts of the fiction were based (Ed Gein sewing human flesh into different patterns).

"early Christian writings"
Once again, the early Christian writings are all post-Jesus. So no, they aren't evidence of Jesus. Only a demonstration that some people believe bullshit.

"writings of non-contemporary historians"
No. Non-contemparies writing stories from hearsay, aren't evidence a person existed. For instance, ever heard of Ivan Renko? People will believe any old bullshit if they think it will make people pay attention to them. Even in the age of information where the truth is but a click away if you're intelligent enough to validate your sources.

So in your view historians who draw conclusions about the historical Jesus, that he existed, based on these sources, would not be basing their conclusions on evidence.

And if they think it's reasonable to draw conclusions from these sources (which you claim don't constitute as evidence), then it would mean they are delusional. Right?

As per your definition: "If you believe that it is reasonable to accept the existence of something without evidence in any shape or form, then you are delusional."

Or did I just strawman you again?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2015, 12:36 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(13-10-2015 12:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-10-2015 12:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Of what?
"a historical Jesus"
That a guy named Yeshua existed? I already answered that. Plausible that a guy named Yeshua (Joshua, which was a common name) existed. I bet multiple people named Yeshua existed during that time

That doesn't answer my question, but your other responses did:

Quote:"like the NT writings"
NT writings = claims about Jesus, not evidence of a Yeshua. In the same way that a movie about a character named Leather-face doesn't prove Leather-face existed nor would it prove that there was a historical figure upon which parts of the fiction were based (Ed Gein sewing human flesh into different patterns).

"early Christian writings"
Once again, the early Christian writings are all post-Jesus. So no, they aren't evidence of Jesus. Only a demonstration that some people believe bullshit.

"writings of non-contemporary historians"
No. Non-contemparies writing stories from hearsay, aren't evidence a person existed. For instance, ever heard of Ivan Renko? People will believe any old bullshit if they think it will make people pay attention to them. Even in the age of information where the truth is but a click away if you're intelligent enough to validate your sources.

So in your view historians who draw conclusions about the historical Jesus, that he existed, based on these sources, would not be basing their conclusions on evidence.

And if they think it's reasonable to draw conclusions from these sources (which you claim don't constitute as evidence), then it would mean they are delusional. Right?

As per your definition: "If you believe that it is reasonable to accept the existence of something without evidence in any shape or form, then you are delusional."

Or did I just strawman you again?

"That doesn't answer my question, but your other responses did:"

It does but your intellect seems to limit your comprehension.

"So in your view historians who draw conclusions about the historical Jesus, that he existed, based on these sources, would not be basing their conclusions on evidence."

On a historical person named Yeshua living between 0-35 CE? As I have said multiple times, it is plausible, based on the evidence, that many people named Yeshua lived during that time.

"Or did I just strawman you again?"

Yes, because you continue to ignore explicit answers to your questions and continue to make assumptions about what I say or imply that I don't say or imply.

This is like Pigeon Chess, except a pigeon is probably more intelligent that you are. Facepalm

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2015, 12:41 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(13-10-2015 12:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's a simple question. I want to know if the early sources, NT Writings, the writing on non-contempory historians, etc... used by historians to draw conclusions about the existence of Jesus, constitute as evidence or not.

Do these sources constitute as evidence in your view or not?
Evidence of what?

Evidence of historical existence of biblical Yeshua?
- NO

Evidence of hearsay and gossip about a character named Yeshua, unrelated to the biblical character?
- Yes

[Image: 004.sig]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aoi Magi's post
13-10-2015, 12:48 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
[Image: Be-bzi4CcAA-uiC.jpg]

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
13-10-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(13-10-2015 12:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It does but your intellect seems to limit your comprehension.

Funny.

Quote:On a historical person named Yeshua living between 0-35 CE? As I have said multiple times, it is plausible, based on the evidence, that many people named Yeshua lived during that time.

So according to you the only evidence based conclusion that historians can draw is that Yeshua was a common name during that period? Of course this doesn't even remotely resemble the conclusions drawn by historians on the historicity of Jesus, as if they define their view as a belief that Yeshua was a common name.

So any other conclusions drawn about the Jesus of the Gospels, such as he was a Jewish apocalyptical preacher, a messiah claimant and the cult leader of the movement later called Christianity, that went around preaching about the Kingdom of a God, the sources of a variety of parables and sayings attributed to him in the Gospels, had a brother named James, and was strung up by the Roman, under Pilate?

These would be conclusions based on no evidence? If people believe these are reasonable conclusions, they would be delusional?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2015, 01:39 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(13-10-2015 01:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-10-2015 12:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It does but your intellect seems to limit your comprehension.

Funny.

Quote:On a historical person named Yeshua living between 0-35 CE? As I have said multiple times, it is plausible, based on the evidence, that many people named Yeshua lived during that time.

So according to you the only evidence based conclusion that historians can draw is that Yeshua was a common name during that period? Of course this doesn't even remotely resemble the conclusions drawn by historians on the historicity of Jesus, as if they define their view as a belief that Yeshua was a common name.

So any other conclusions drawn about the Jesus of the Gospels, such as he was a Jewish apocalyptical preacher, a messiah claimant and the cult leader of the movement later called Christianity, that went around preaching about the Kingdom of a God, the sources of a variety of parables and sayings attributed to him in the Gospels, had a brother named James, and was strung up by the Roman, under Pilate?

These would be conclusions based on no evidence? If people believe these are reasonable conclusions, they would be delusional?

"Funny. "
Serious

"So according to you the only evidence based conclusion that historians can draw is that Yeshua was a common name during that period?"

Straw man

"So any other conclusions drawn about the Jesus of the Gospels, such as he was a Jewish apocalyptical preacher, a messiah claimant and the cult leader of the movement later called Christianity, that went around preaching about the Kingdom of a God, the sources of a variety of parables and sayings attributed to him in the Gospels, had a brother named James, and was strung up by the Roman, under Pilate? "

New Testament = claim

Leather-face chased people with a chainsaw in the movie, doesn't make it real.

"These would be conclusions based on no evidence? If people believe these are reasonable conclusions, they would be delusional?"

Straw man. You are now equating my rejection of Jesus (NT character) with a plausible Yeshua and inferring that I am saying that any other historical evidence (like of Pilate) isn't true for other people, or even for historical evidence of heretical preachers being crucified by the Romans. Another BS straw man for you.


Fucking pigeon chess with your dumbass.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2015, 01:45 PM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2015 01:53 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(13-10-2015 01:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "So according to you the only evidence based conclusion that historians can draw is that Yeshua was a common name during that period?"

Straw man

Okay, I'll allow you to clarify. Please let us know what evidence based conclusions can historians draw about the historical Jesus, beyond that Yeshua was a common name during that period in time.

Would a conclusion that he was crucified under Pilate be an evidence based conclusion?

That he had a brother named James?

That he inspired the Gospels and the NT writings?

Quote:Fucking pigeon chess with your dumbass.

As long as you're enjoying it. Because I am. I'm curious about how much you can poke a person's dissonance, until it breaks. Apparently you can poke it a great deal and it remains unfazed.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2015, 01:47 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(13-10-2015 01:45 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-10-2015 01:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "So according to you the only evidence based conclusion that historians can draw is that Yeshua was a common name during that period?"

Straw man

Okay, I'll allow you to clarify. Please let us now what evidence based conclusions can historians draw about the historical Jesus, beyond that Yeshua was a common name during that period in time.

Would a conclusion that he was crucified under Pilate be an evidence based conclusion?

That he had a brother named James?

That he inspired the Gospels and the NT writings?

"Would a conclusion that he was crucified under Pilate be an evidence based conclusion? "

Someone named Yeshua might have been.

"That he had a brother named James? "

No. That claim comes from Paul

"That he inspired the Gospels and the NT writings?"

Don't know. Any one of the heretical preachers of the time might have been the basis for a fictional character in the NT. Maybe one of them happened to be named Yeshua (Joshua)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: